There is a well-documented positive correlation between years of education and conservative beliefs, although most academics outside the sociology department would not know about it. (Not that sociologists are conservative, just that they are more likely to be aware of results of this nature.) Given that there is a correlation between IQ and years of education, it would be interesting to see if there is a correlation between IQ and conservative political beliefs. I have never seen such a study, which leads me to suspect that there is a correlation and researchers find the result unappetizing, so they investigate subsidiary topics where they can find results they like, as the researchers did here.

"Even if what you suggest is true of liberals, these are all still advancement over prejudice and racism embraced by the dummies on the right. That's why liberals are treated cancer is also progressive progressive."

A much more useful and insightful test is offered by Jonathan Haidt's test offered at www.YourMorals.org which shows the relationship between one's beliefs and social/political choices. Any claiming of my side has a higher IQ is just silly posturing.

@Dave,I wonder about that. Just anecdotally, almost every rugger I've played with, every Soldier I've served with, every SCUBA diver I've dived with, every Firefighter I've gone interior with, every pilot I've flown alongside, and almost every skydiver I've jumped alongside have all been conservative.

I'm thinking these are all risk-taking activities...My belief is that liberals like the appearance of risk, but avoid actual risk.

After I learned that the inventors of social science research created it solely for the purpose of destroying Judeo-Christian values -- because the inventors of social science research believed it is those Judeo-Christian values that have held Western civilization together and prevented the widespread acceptance of Marxism from taking hold, it's simply impossible for me to believe that ANY of it is ever done using truly objective scientific methods for the purpose of advancing knowledge.

To me, it's ALWAYS leftist political propaganda masquerading as pseudo-science.

Here's a long but interesting synopsis if anybody has the time or inclination:

How does Hodson define "conservative" and "liberal?" What questions were used to indicate conservatism/liberalism? Same with "racism." I suspect more fuzzy BS attempting to pose as science. Psych studies are notorious for being poorly constructed on somewhat less than emprical foundations.

I've seen many such studies, and they all suffered from construction bias, at the very least.

Without seeing the original data and assumptions, there ain't no there there. And of course, the study itself is hidden behind a paywall, so we can't ven see how it was constructed, much less if the underlying assumptions are even included.

If being intelligent means actually believing that the way to prosperity is taxes and "investment" in "green jobs", I will take stupidity thank you.

Most liberals are dogmatic, pig headed, ignorant and prejudice against anyone who doesn't think exactly like them. When you look at how horribly reactionary someone like Garage is and take this study at its word, you are left with the conclusion that perhaps there is more to life than IQ because IQ doesn't seem to be buying liberals much beyond hatred and ignorance.

I like that line. If Mitt planned to base his entire domestic policy around finding the tree of life, I would worry about his religious beliefs. But we currently has a President who honestly seems to believe the entire country can be fed by a giant magical unicorn barbecue known as "green energy". It is just barking mad.

Clearly the left has promoted the meme that liberals are smarter. And indeed many liberals are liberal because they believe that to be true. Without that believe, as profound as the old timey belief in a God, some of our commenters here would be left with the horrible truth.

Absolutely hysterical. This is a person that was raised to believe that Hitler was right wing.

Apparently so was shiloh. For us stupid, bitter, clingers, shiloh, perhaps you can illustrate just how a tyrannical statist like Hitler was a conservative. Then, possibly, you can follow up with evidence that use of coercive violence to back up domestic policy is inherently right-wing.

Maggot I checked out your link and read this:Indeed, all ideologies are totalitarian because the essence of an ideology (I would note that conservatism correctly understood is not an ideology) is to take some philosophy and say on the basis of this philosophy certain things must be true.This ahistorical generalization that tries to reframe the notion of ideology is simply propaganda that can be checked by simply searching for the roots of conservative IDEOLOGY articles-- there are many.I think liberals and conservatives like religious followers take many things on faith. For example Alan Greenspan was shocked to discover his ideology may have been wrong even as empirical evidence to the contrary was building. Ah but so many are gullible willing to believe out right lies--

All well and good, but I'm going with the ideology that would rather be left alone to it's own devices rather than be forced, by that other ideology, to relinquish liberty after liberty while constantly swelling centralized control.

I'm fine with that, even if I have to take it on faith that I can look after me and mine.

Really? Why do you think conservatives take anything on faith? What is the actual reasoning behind that statement?

Given the differences in charitable giving, it seems that liberals would rather "pay at the office" and put their faith in bureaucracies to use that money while conservatives would rather give money directly to the charities they choose...usually after being forced to pay at the office anyway.

shiloh, are you a painter? You seem to have a good stock of broad brushes.

I do my time in liberal talk-backs and try to hold forth without slinging ad hominem or disparaging people. I come here because people here have a sense of humor, unlike the previously mentioned liberal talk-backs.

Mainstream IQ research - which I reject - was funded by the Pioneer Fund and carried out by members of the various eugenic societies. It resulted in the thesis of the Bell Curve which was that African-Americans have lower IQ's for genetic reasons. This racist thesis is still the conclusion of most IQ research and for that reason IQ research is suspect. It seems to be just a stick to beat those you don't like.

resulted in the thesis of the Bell Curve which was that African-Americans have lower IQ's for genetic reasons.If you're referring to Charles Murray's book, it's been years since I read it, but I don't believe your assertion is correct. He carefully avoided that conclusion, but the critics blasted him anyway.

If you're referring to Charles Murray's book, it's been years since I read it, but I don't believe your assertion is correct. He carefully avoided that conclusion

Murray was making an ugly statement about genetics, IQ and African-Americans. Given his sources (who included Arthur Jensen and the rest of the Pioneer Fund grantees) he could not have done otherwise. The statement comes in a droning academic tone but it is clear. From many examples, here is one - "the most efficient way to raise the IQ of a society is for smarter women to have higher birth rates rather than duller women ...America is going in the opposite direction ... The implication is a future America with more social ills and gloomier economic prospects. These conclusions follow directly from the evidence we have presented ... The United States is encouraging the wrong women [to have babies]"

Didn't African-Americans in this country vote like, 95% to 5% for President 0bama? Is that a cult-like following? Does that qualify as "conformity"? Or are they just Democrats? Like the town in North Carolina which couldn't get rid of party primaries because then the Blacks wouldn't know who to vote for in the general elections?(That's the reason given by the Justice Department official.)

shiloh said...ok, Rusty was the 1st to deflect to Hitler as Althouse conservatives unite! against fascism er conservatism. :D

1/27/12 1:53 PM

Which doesn't make it any less true. And, in fact, would give anyone curious enough an idea as to where to look for the roots of progressive policy. Which was, and always has been, racist at its core and wholly American in its makeup.carry on.

Synova, yes one does not need a high IQ to be a productive citizen, or a good conservative or liberal, although I think folks tend to "believe" in their cause long after real politics have left it behind. Examples include Lenin on the left ( and many pre-cold war Marist) and Greenspan and others on the right. Most recently the belief that Gingrich, the prime force in polarizing politics by casting the other as demons, could become the president to bring congress to work together is another example of belief over history.

Ralph, you're right. I wasn't making sense. The syllogism "If p, then q" means that if p is present then q follows. The presence of q doesn't mean that p was around first. So the African-American community voting in a cult like fashion for 0bama has other explanations than the explanation of low intelligence which drives people to being conservatives.

The original paper "Low IQ and Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice" is a crock, the excerpts in the Isthmus, and the comments there just reinforce some harsh blanket statements which can be made about progressive-socialist-liberals. The occupy crowd seemed to be the type of group that this paper would claim was fueled by many members with low intelligence submitting to a socially hierarchical system.

There were huge swaths of intellectuals that supported Communist and Nazi/Fascist movements that considered themselves "progressives" and of the left.

There still exists many people with high IQs that think Marxism is great, despite the utter failure of every attempt in implement it and the resultant death toll in the millions where ever it has been tried. Not to mention the political prisons and Gulags. And suppression of Liberty.